5/28 How come China doesn't ask the US to provide some CH-47 Chinooks to do
the heavy lifting of personels, aids and machinery up to those disaster
areas where roads are blocked? It'd be much better than PLA troops
carrying tools and supplies to the areas by hiking tens of kilometers.
\_ Haven't the Chinese stolen plans for the Chinooks by now
and built their own?
\_ 1 million Chinese soldiers carrying supplies over the
mountains >> a few US Chinooks. remember the Korean war?
\_ It's hard for 1 million Chinese soldiers to move earth-moving
machinary that can weight a dozen tons each through mountains.
(Unless they disassemble and re-assemble it, in which case it's
inefficient.)
\_ China actually has helicopters of their own now.

5/27 How is Heckler & Koch P2000 compared to say, Beretta PX4 Storm?
How about the ultra configurable Sig Sauer P250?
\_ The only time I really wished I had a gun was when we were
hiking in the middle of nowhere and there were a bunch of
gangster looking people who kept looking at us and pointing
as if they wanted to rape the girls and kill the guys or
something. They could have easily done so if they wanted to.
Other than that, there's never been a time where
I wished I had a gun.
\_ The P250 is a sub compact frame, the PX4 storm is compact. I've
found I just don't like the grips of the subcompacts, and am going
to stick with the PX4. -emarkp
\_ Also P250 is double action (DA) only. I hate DA-only mode.
Imagine needing accuracy for the second shot. Always get
DA->SA with de-cocker option.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg119-e.htm Good site
\_ Agreed, DA/SA is better at least for me. It's one reason I've
rejected a revolver for concealed carry. -emarkp
\_ Huh? Many modern revolvers are DA/SA. -- ilyas
\_ Also a revolver is hard to reload and the chamber is
so friggin bulky. We're not in the wild wild west anymore
\_ I'm a gun newbie and I'm wondering if DA/SA is better
for me? I'd like to be able to "cock" the first shot
with a single trigger pull, then pull lighter with
subsequent pulls. Is that what you call a "DA/SA"
gun? What are some autoloading guns that are DA/SA?
\_ Yes. DA = Double Action = hammer not cocked
SA = Single Action = hammer is cocked
On an automatic handgun, the slide kicks back and ejects
a round, then cocks the hammer and loads the new round.
Most automatics are DA/SA. Some are SA only which
require manually cocking the hammer before the first
round can be fired.
\_ HK P2000 has many modes, are they switcheable
between the modes? Like DA only, LEM, DA/SA...
\_ I honestly don't know.
\_ Are your guns switcheable?
\_ no, but my penis is
\_ ??
\_ I've always wanted to hide spare guns and clips in houseplants,
\_ I've always wanted to hide spare guns and magazines in houseplants,
like Chow Yun Fat.
\_ Magazines. Not clips.

5/28 I got an Xbox 360 a while back, and I didn't have a system last
generation, so I've been buying old Xbox games from the bargain bin.
Does anyone have any recommendations? At $4 a pop, it doesn't have to
be amazing.
\_ At $4 per 1/2 box, you can shoot a bunch of 9mm's from
a nice Beretta and have more fun than being a geek.

5/28 Former White House press sect comes out with book bashing
his old boss. I feel like we're trapped in an alternate
universe where I read the newspaper and think immediately
'well OF COURSE I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THIS STUFF' when
I read the newspaper and that The Onion should give up, since
their writers will never be able to keep up with the tragic
humor masters of the Bush administration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/w051712D44.DTLhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/6h9yup
\_ Uhm... "fired staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
\_ Uhm... "fired Bush staffer pens bash book" is not exactly news for
any administration. Is this your first election cycle in this
country?
\_ Yeah, let's talk about something more important, like WHY
DOESN'T THAT MARXIST OBAMA WEAR A FLAG PIN?
\_ Nice strawman.
Bush bashing is such old hat now isn't it? I mean, how
\_ doesn't get old. consequences of trying to pave Iraq
with no viable plan will be with us for decades.
old money bluebloods in CT still whine about the
New Deal, and that was a long time ago. Iraq isn't
even last week. Iraq is The Now(tm).
\_ Well, Al Qaeda has a part to play in this doesn't it?
If it didn't do 9/11 and fight us in Afghanistan and
Iraq then a lot fewer innocents would have died.
If Saddam wasn't a brutal strongman then we'd have no
excuse to go in there. Who is responsible for the
terrorism in Iraq? It's not the USA that is blowing up
street markets. Iraq is pretty effed up but it was
already effed up.
\_ AQ wasn't in Iraq pre-US Invasion. AQ and SH were
not BFF. We should have stopped with Afghanistan.
We should have brought other pressures against
SH. There were no WMD. There was no link to AQ.
Stop perpetuating lies told by chickenhawks to
sell a war to demonstrate that the Powell
Doctrine was bunk.
\_ I know there was no link to AQ, but there is now
right? So what about that? Should we ignore AQ?
AQ is there now and causing deaths.
\_ AQI is nowhere near as powerful or popular
as the AQ was when the Taliban ruled Afg.
We should leave the internal affair of
cleaning up AQI to the Iraqis.
much more dead can that horse get? Me, I consider myself
an independent voter because the reality is that both major
parties are full of posturing blowhards. If you really care
about change then you should push for instant runoff voting
and support real change from status quo American politics.
Not Obama populist speechmaking change, actual structural
change. Americans are too complacent. We often complain about
the choices but then go ahead and vote for one of them anyway
instead of making a concerted effort to bring someone else in.
I actually think a random selection of people would be better
Congresspersons than district-based elected reps from
political parties. Proportional representation would be
pretty good but political parties in general are somewhat
broken. You could have a bunch of people randomly selected
from an opt-in pool and then have voters approve some number
of those. The usual road to political campaign promotes
corruption and actor-style figurehead polticians.
change. Americans are too complacent.
\_ You really think a Democratic President is going to
be exactly like a Republican one? You expect more
unprovoked wars and massive transfers of wealth from
future taxpayers to well-connected defence contractors?
I don't. If you support real change, you should join
Common Cause and push for campaign finance reform. I did.
\_ You really think a new Republican President is going to
be exactly like Bush?
Bush couldn't do what he has done without the support
of Democrats in Congress. Do you really think Democrats
\_ I believe Bush and his advisors were able to
brilliantly out maneuver and bully Congress into
funding their Iraq plan. Also in another thread
we can all rant about Bush not following laws,
interpreting laws only in the way his lawyers
say they should be interpretted, just simply not
following laws he didnt like because hey its
war time, and then we can get into torture and
how Bush has thrown away decades of world good
will by showing how the US just doesn't care about
the Geneva conventions.
\_ Laugh. How did they bully Congress? If Bush is
not following laws, why don't they impeach him?
\_ I DO NOT KNOW!
\_ They didn't have the votes.
What laws? What world good will exactly? The
\_ look up 'signing statements'
\_ what material effect has this had?
good will was already pretty suspect in most
Arab countries; we have been strongly supporting
Israel for a long ass time and fucking around
protecting or deposing various third world
regimes. The Guantanamo dudes were mainly from the
Afghanistan thing which everybody seems to think
was a fine and jolly war.
\_ American popularity has plummeted worldwide,
not just in the Middle East.
\_ Well, it doesn't seem to matter anywhere but
in the middle east. I don't think this is
a long term thing. Muslims aren't very happy
about Europe either, and China already had
tension for obvious reasons. I don't see any
real long term difference.
\_ The majority of the Guantanamites were sold to
us by our allies in Pakistan. The Bush Admin
encouraged a sloppy attitude toward accepting
these guys without research or due process.
This same Admin then took a laissez-faire
approach to torturing those same people,
most of whom have now been released as not
having been terrorists to begin with.
are corruption-free? Do you think liberals are good
and conservatives are evil?
Democratic presidents took the USA into WW1, WW2, Korea
Vietnam, and Kosovo.
\_ WW1 = won
WW2 = won
Korea = stalemate
Vietnam = lost
Kosovo = won
I think the batting average of a Dem >>> Rep
\_ That's nice, pinhead.
\_ somalia = lost
grenada = won
nicaragua = won
\_ Somalia: poor planning, no war.
Grenada: The entire USMC vs. a minor band of
guerillas; if we'd "lost," there would have
been hell to pay.
\_ Panama '89 = won
Democrats are just as cosy with corporate America as
Republicans.
Campaign finance reform is mostly meaningless.
\_ Bush definitely could not have done what he did
without the support of the GOP. If the Dems are
collaborators, then GOP are Nazis. I'll take the
former over the latter any day.
\_ Really. Why? Bush couldn't do what he did without
the complacence of the American people. Anyway
Iraq isn't fundamentally very different from those
\_ So, since we didn't storm the White House or
impeach them, we're to blame for his bad
behavior? This is like someone killing people
then blaming the police for not catching him.
\_ Well, yes, because we elected him twice.
I blame the American people and Congress.
What do you want from me? We have only
two stinking parties and they are both
bad in various ways. Last time I voted
for Kerry, but I didn't even like Kerry.
This time I will vote for McCain. What
exactly do you want to impeach Bush on?
\_ Lying. Suppressing intel that didn't
favor his plans. Destroying e-mail.
Outing a CIA operative. What do I
want from you? A realization that no
matter who gets elected, they are
not going to be as fundamentally
bad as the President and Veep; a
statement to the effect that no
matter what anyone else didn't do
stop them, they were responsible
for the evil that they did. I
want you to hold the Bush Admin
responsible for its actions, and I
want you to do so without qualifying
it with excuses or references to the
Dems' behavior.
\_ No, I can't hold ONLY Bush
and Veep responsible because they
did not have the power to do their
thing alone. Congress was complicit,
CIA members were complicit, Britain
went to war and we did not force
it to do that. There was evidence
that SH wanted WMD even if he did
not have them, and there was an
insufficient trail for the WMD
that he was supposed to have had.
It's not useful to fixate only on
Bush and ignore the big picture.
How much was evil and how much was
incompetence I do not know. SH did
sponsor Palestinian terrorism to
some extent.
\_ I want a drug pony, indict me.
The POTUS was in a position to
know that the intel he was
receiving was shaky at best.
He still passed it on like it
was a "slam dunk." I buy that
Congress didn't stop POTUS,
and that some in the CIA wanted
to please the prez. The least
you can do is admit that the
Prez. set the tone and ignored
anything that contradicted.
This inability to accept *any*
blame w/o blaming someone else
at the same time is the key
character flaw of this Admin
and its apologists.
\_ Yes, obviously POTUS wanted war,
and dismissed indications
that were contrary to his aim,
and pumped the dubious stuff and
misportrayed the state of intel.
This was wrong etc. But then it's
not like there was hard evidence
against the WMD thing. We do know
SH had a WMD program of sorts and
it's possible we'd have ended up
in Iraq by now anyway for one
reason or another.
But yes, I do blame the prez for
the war. But I don't transfer this
blame to the entire Republican
Party; or at least not really more
than the D Party. Americans elected
W after the WMD fiasco was known.
At that point I am less concerned
about Mr. Bush personally.
other wars in principle. Saddam was a bad guy
and we're fighting for freedom. What's the
\_ the reasons we invaded Iraq change every
day. i don't think this is like past wars,
at all.
\_ It's exactly like past wars. The US was
not threatened in any war except WW2, and
that case was after the US already made
offensive moves against Japan.
The difference is that Bush was more
clumsy and hamhanded about it with the
lame justifications. He wasn't able to
make adequate speeches to inspire the
rabble (but it was still enough).
\_ We got involved in the Korean and
Vietnam war to show our muscle and
annoy the local power in that part of
the world, China. So we invaded Iraq
to annoy Iran? Piss off Syria? Huh
I guess you're right the Iraq war
is like every other war!
\_ So your argument is that just because
others talked us into illegal actions
we should let this bungler off the hook
just because he was so bad at it?
What the hell kind of behavior are we
rewarding here?
\_ No that's not my argument. (?)
difference? We killed lots and lots of civilians
in those other wars too. What's your big problem?
Did defense contractors not profit in the past?
Let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We'd still be
in Afghanistan, right? We'd still maintain the
overwhelming power of the US military. We'd still
have dot com bubbles and housing bubbles. The D's
aren't putting forth anything really different.
Guys like Nader and Ron Paul do put forth stuff
that is different. In 2000 Gore and Bush sounded
very alike and spent the debates mostly agreeing
with each other.
\_ Clinton significanly cut the military budget
and used that money to balance the fed budget.
This is not a small thing. A more liberal
Democrat might actually get something
significant done, like national health care.
WWII was different in that we actually
attacked the people who bombed us. I will
grant you Vietnam.
\_ Of course the Republican strategy to
Vietnam would have been so much less
aggressive.
\_ Re: national health care
Be careful what you wish for.
\_ No, Democrats aren't just as cozy with corporate
America as the Republicans, or they wouldn't support
things like Unions. Corporate America hates unions.
But they are cozy with certain sorts of corporations,
ones that do things like educate, build mass transit,
entertain and litigate (okay, not so great perhaps).
I prefer all of these to bombing civilians for
profit.
I am kind of nutty that way.
\_ You are pretty nutty to believe that Republicans
literally bomb civilians for profit, and that
they don't educate or do anything other than
rape babies. Seriously, take a breath and think
about it. Corporations give huge amounts of
money to Dem campaigns. Dems have huge investment
stakes and other ties large corporations. HRC
served on the board of Wal-Mart. But no,
Republicans bomb civilians for profit. Yay.
\_ Yes, I am very familliar with which special
\_ Yes, I am very familiar with which special
interest groups give to which candidates.
Obviously, you are not. Who does Boeing,
Halliburton, Bechtel and the other war
profiteers donate to? Do you even know?
Most big corporations hedge their bets a
little, but Big Oil and the Military Industrial
Complex overwhelmingly lean GOP. Can you guess
why? Wal-Mart arguably does some things that
are in the public interest (I know, so does
Big Oil...)
\_ Show me the data. And show me where the
money is going in the current election.
Democrats seem to be getting a lot of funds
from defense industry employees now:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D
Democrats have had power in this country
before and have power in Congress now.
Where's the beef? Where's the utopian
legislation that will lead us to the
promised land? Democrats authorized Bush
to invade Iraq. Democrats do Bad Things
sometimes. National defense is not a
Republican invention and none of the
frontrunning candidates are going to
cut our military meaningfully after 2008.
The only one with that platform was Paul
(a Republican).
\_ and Kucinich, Gravel, Frank Moore.
\_ what about Nader? Point being that
these guys are essentially not in
the Democratic Party.
What's Obama gonna do?
\_ Look at the last eight years. But yes,
everyone can see which way the wind blows
now. A majority of Democrats in Congress
voted against the bill to give Bush the
authority to invade Iraq, no amount of
spin can change that. I think you are
wrong about Obama and defense spending.
Clinton cut it by 1/3 from Reagan. Obama
will do the same. There is no promised
land, but leadership matters and some of
it is clearly better.
\_ Obama would inherit Iraq. He's not
going to be able to cut the military
by 1/3 in a first term, you are nuts.
Clinton did not inherit any wars.
The president doesn't even have that
power, he needs Congress to do it.
As you said, companies try to go where
the wind is blowing and the wind was
blowing for GOP in the last 8 yrs.
\_ Repeatedly questioning my sanity
does not make your arguments any
more pursuasive. I have been shown
to be 100% right about Bush, even
when my position was the extreme
minority. You have not apparently
learned anything at all. Simply
ending the war in Iraq will cut
the military budget by 1/3. I
expect Obama to do thatin the first
expect Obama to do that in the first
two years of his term.
\_ Your position was never in the
extreme minority; that proves
you have a fantasyland inside
your head. What am I supposed
to learn? I didn't vote for
Bush, nor do I like him. I am
just being pragmatic. The
Democrats are not better and
are worse in other ways. The
war in Iraq will play out
similarly with any of the
candidates. Obama will "end"
the war but we will still have
troops there. We already ended
it a long time ago; mission
accomplished etc.
\_ Bush popularity rating was
91% at one point. Either you
have a strange definition
of extreme minority or a very
selective memory.
\_ His rating was never 91%.
Maybe among Republicans.
\_ Oct '01 according to
some polls. Check:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm
Riding high after 9/11
'01? Bush hadn't done shit by then. _/
But ok I stand corrected. What were
you saying about him in Oct 01 that
you were so right about? In Oct 01
we were inundated with patriotism.
\_ Apologies: stat was posted by
motd fact-checker, not pp. Pls
continue.
\_ Somebody sure made money from all those bombs
dropped on Iraq. They don't build those
things for free, you know.
\_ You think no Democrats profited from that?
Hell, maybe you have a mutual fund with
defense industry stock and you profited
yourself. I probably profited. Democrats
profited from napalming Vietnamese villages.
This is not a fruitful line of discussion.
\_ "...You are pretty nutty to believe that
Republicans literally bomb civilians
for profit..." Yes, I would imagine
you find it unfruitful.
\_ Yes?
\_ Hardly a strawman: Obama was called a Marxist on the motd
and the flag pin question was in the PA debate.
\_ Wow, that's real serious important discussion there.
\_ Exactly my point. The media has spent more time
on Obama's non-existent flag pin then on health care.
\_ What? No, this is false.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/69jcj3
Okay, they have pretty much the same
amount of entries here. Do you have any
evidence to back up your claim that the media
has spent more time on health care?
\_ If only McClellan had said something about books like this...oh.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/as-scottie-sowe.html
\_ You know what? I think if Gore the Democrat had been elected,
the new Gore Administration would not have been full of
hubris filled neocon toadies. I do not think they would have
invaded Iraq under false pretenses. We can debate this all day,
but I firmly believe this. I do not think the world would
appear to be headed towards a gigantic United States led
clusterfuck if a Democractic, Gore led administration were
in power right now. I believe there are significant differences
between the current Republican Bush administration, and my
fantasy Gore Democractic administration. I believe an Obama
or Hillary (ahem) administration would not blindly invade Iran
right now. I haven't heard Obama or Hillary (ahem) casually
mention that we should prepare to be in Iraq for the next 1000
years.
\_ While this is most certainly true, I think this has more to
do with BUSHCO than it has to do with the GOP. I doubt Pres.
McCain would have blindly invaded Iraq, &c.
\_ It was hardly blindly. It was very deliberate.
\_ yes, in fact it had been suggested by the whole host of
GOP chicken hawks as far back as 1997. See the PNAC. -tom
\_ Which is exactly why a McCain administration will
invade Iran, if they can figure out how to talk
Congress into it.
\_ It depends on which McCain we get after the election.

5/28 I just learned that interracial marriage was illegal in 16
states until 1967. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. GO REPUBLICAN STATES!!! McCain #1!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542138
\_ Two generations from now people will think the whole fear of
gay marriage is just as bizzare.
\_ Certainly the labeling people as in "fear" will be.
\_ Ok, if you want me to call you a bigotted idiot instead
I can do that for you.
\_ Not really. There are religious reasons for the latter and
not the former. Personally, I think the government should
stay out of marriage entirely.
\_ There were religious reasons cited 50 years ago as well.
And the government can't stay out of marriage entirely.
There are legal rammifications to marriage that you can't
magically solve by contract law.
\_ 1. There are no religious arguments that any major religion
can cite. People can always make sure their own
can cite. People can always make up their own
religions, but certainly interracial marriage is
not prohibited by the major ones.
\_ The "Curse of Ham" was used as justification against
interracial marriage. And see below. But why the
hell does it matter what one religion cares about
marriage? We aren't talking about religious marriage
we are talking about the state's concept of marriage.
You know, the state that isn't supposed to be
involved in that whole religion thing.
\_ Since there's really not any scriptural
evidence for Black people having anything to do
with Ham, let alone that you shouldn't marry
decendents of Ham, all that proves is that people
can make up BS to justify their stupid ideas.
That's not even remotely compareable to the actual
explicit scriptural prohibition of homosexual
intercourse.
\_ You filthy shrimp eater!
\_ Despite what you've heard, the New
Testement also forbids homosexual
Testament also forbids homosexual
intercourse.
\_ I haven't heard diddly. I was lucky
enough to be born to a family that didn't
think some crazy ass book from 2000
years ago should be used as an excuse
to deny other people their rights
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and\
full submission. I do not permit a woman
\_ Ok, thanks for admitting you're
completely ignorant. Next time you
have no idea what you're talking about
why not just keep out of the
discussion?
\_ No, I think your "but my religion
says to keep The Gays second class
citizens" argument is stupid.
Your religion says a lot of shit,
why should it affect me?
\_ You made an invalid comparison
I pointed it out. Your bluster
does not conceal this.
\_ The fact that The Bible tells
you that gay marriage is EVIL
should affect me no more than
that shrimp are not kosher.
Why the hell are we basing
our laws on what The Bible
says? There's a word for
that. Theocracy. Last I
checked our constitution
specifically prohibits
theocratic rule.
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and
full submission. I do not permit a woman
to teach or to have authority over a man;\
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support
that one?
to teach or to have authority over a man;
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support that one?
\_ All of my elementary school teachers were women.
\_ What if he does? This is a tangent.
2. We can avoid #1 entirely if government stays out of
it. There is no legal ramification to marriage that
cannot be resolved by contract law. Name just one.
\_ Immigration. Visitation rights for prisoners.
Health care for people who get it via being the
spouse of someone with health care (important if
you have a medical condition). Not to mention all
that messy divorce law, especially for people who
have children. Need I go on?
\_ Yes. Why can't these be solved by contract
law again? I see no unsolvable problems.
\_ Marriage provides rights that are granted by
non signers of the contract. I can't create
a non marriage contract that lets me file my
taxes as a married couple. I can't create a
non marriage contract that forces immigration
to treat the other signer the same way they
would if we were married. etc. That's not
contract law. That's rights the state has
decided are inheriant to married couples.
\_ You are bogged down in semantics. Just
because it is that way doesn't mean it
has to be that way. Other law could
resolve those issues. There's no reason
it couldn't.
\_ Other law. Non contract law. I'm
not sure why you have this hardon for
changing the name of marriage to
something else, but I'd say the
person with a semantic problem is you.
My main point is that marriage has
significant, non religious, non contract
rights assiciated with it, which is
something I think people often forget.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/cud2h for a better list
\_ This guy's point is that you could have a
"cohabitation contract" which gives all
the enumerated rights/responsibilities. It
doesn't have to be a "marriage". Seriously,
suppose I'm a fat lame non-gay geek, and my
similarly fat, lame, non-gay geeky roommate
and I decide to give up on women and try
to forge an economic and social alliance
such that we can better take care of each
other? No sex, just, this guy can handle
my finances, make medical decisions,
visit me in prison, etc.? Why should that
be forbidden simply 'cause we're not
romantic partners? This "marriage" thing
under the law needs to be generalized to
not just hetero romantic/breeding partners,
and not just gay romantic partners, but
to anyone who can benefit from having even a
non-romantic domestic partner of either sex.
The only reason to deny this is religious.
\_ If you want to make something that has
the exact same legal benefits of marriage
in the eyes of the state, and you want to
call it something other that marriage and
get rid anything called marriage at the state
or national level, well, ok. But it is
basically marriage, whatever you want to call
it. I'm not sure what benefit you get by
changing the name.
changing the name. And the guy above said
there were no rights to marriage that couldn't
be solved by contract law. That's wrong. To
solve them you have to change a hell of a lot
of other laws to say "this right is granted
to a couple that has signed into a binding
whatever-you-want-to-call-it relationship".
The fact that someone can ignore such giant
benefits as marriage immigration and tax
laws means they obviously have never thought
just how big of an advantage married couples
have in the eyes of the state.
have in the legal system.
\_ You're not thinking about it the right
way. Reread what you responded to. It's
also *very* important what you call it
because marriage has religious significance
that "cohabitation contract" does not.
You're not thinking ahead of me. You're
actually still behind me.
\_ No, I know exactly what you are saying
I just think you are wrong. There is
nothing inheriantly religous about
marriage. Changing the terms will
not change any signifcant group's
minds about the issue. Domestic
partnerships, cohabitation contracts,
whatever you call it, people still know
it is "marriage".
\_ Well, no. It's not. Even today many
people "get married" twice (once
at the courthouse and once in
church) so the difference must
matter to them. I don't think
anyone has a problem with gay
people willing each other property,
for example. The term 'marriage'
means something in particular to
many religions quite apart from
whatever the law says. This is a
case where the legal definition
reflected the societal norms of a
Christian nation, but it is no
longer appropriate for the law to
be involved in, or recognize,
marriage. I think you would find
a lot less opposition if there
wasn't an insistence of legalizing
wasn't an instistence of legalizing
'gay marriage' which conjures up
images of a gay priest, gay wedding,
gay honeymoon, and adopted gay kids.
If gay people want to 'get married'
the law has no grounds to be involved
in their religion and should not
be able to stop them , but if it
wants to deny them their rights
as human beings that's a problem.
A happy resolution is if the
gov't stays out of the marriage
business (e.g. marriage license)
entirely. It's NOTB.
\_ Saying that over and over won't
make it true. -tom
\_ sex is bad. - motd not getting laid guy
\_ Why am I not surprised that
you want the government
involved in yet another
aspect of our lives - our
love life no less?
\_ Red herring. You're not
suggesting less government
involvement, you're just
suggesting that the
government change what
it's called. -tom
\_ Not entirely. I think
"marriage" as defined
by the government
should be dissolved.
There is no need for
divorce court, for
marriage certificates,
joint income tax
filings and some other
constructs. Others
should be handled
with power-of-attorney
and contract law. I
am not merely
advocating we keep
marriage as-is and
rename it. It should
be (as a government
construct) abolished.
\_ You can go live your
libritarian fantasy.
The rest of us actually
live in the real world
where some of these
things matter. And
I hope you never fall
in love with someone
who isn't a citizen.
(Or have children.)
\_ Why? Because
"being in love"
grants rights?
Any rights
assigned by
marriage are
arbitrary and
be assigned
without marriage.
\_ saying that over and over again makes
it true - !tom
\_ And ever since this was fixed, racial relations have been perfect!
\- when i read LOVING v VIRGNIA, it was jaw dropping to
read stuff like "god put the races on different continents
because he wanted them apart" ... the fact that that was a
because he wanted them apart" ... esp the fact that that was a
virginia judge writing in the 60s and not a 1920s klansman
in BF, Alabama. The woman n the Lovings case died in the
last couple of months.
\_ Don't you think it's an improvement that a black man can walk
down the street with a white woman and not be killed for it? -tom
\_ only if you're pro Negro
\_ Which has precisely nothing to do with the laws changed.
\_ An interesting assertion. Any evidence? -tom
\_ In which state did Obama's parents get married?
\_ Pakistan outer territories i believe.
\_ "There is no legal ramification to marriage that cannot be solved
by contract law". Um, what? Can someone explain how "contract
law" can give a gay couple the right to inherit unlimited amounts
of property taxfree from their partner or transfer unlimited
amounts of property with their partner tax free? Or get the
social security benefits or federal pensions of the surviving
partner?
\_ You just assign those benefits with a contract other than
a "marriage contract". Just because some other things (like
SS) are broken doesn't mean they can't be fixed. "Gay
marriage" isn't the problem. The problem is that so much of
our law involves "marriage" to begin with. It's an outdated
construct not relevant to modern society except for those
who choose to practice it for religious purposes. Instead
of "spouse" you can substitute "assignee". You don't have
to get married at all in theory.
\_ Please provide some support for the assertion that
marriage is "an outdated construct not relevant to modern
society." Extra credit if you can manage to do it without
circular argument. -tom
\_ How about the fact that gay people want to do it and
that many people are vehemently opposed to allowing
them. Clearly marriage means something to many people
and means something else to gays. Since it excludes
gays, the construct is outdated since gays are people
with rights, too. Instead of creating a new construct
which includes gays and calling *that* marriage why
not eliminate marriage entirely? Marriage is not a modern
concept and the increasing number of cohabitating couples
who never get married attests to that. I am surprised to
find you on the pro-marriage side of the fence. Why are
you so adamant about co-opting the term marriage which
already has a clear meaning in a well-meaning attempt
to extend the rights of marriage to gay couples when
there is no real reason to use the term at all
anymore except in a religious context? I mean, why
should "married couples" have the option to file taxes
together or separately, but "unmarried couples"
cannot? At least the government is starting to see
how stupid *that* is by eliminating the marriage
penalty. I can't really think of any non-religious
reasons that marriage is still relevant in the modern
world.
\_ Effort expenditure: A
Argument advancement: F
Extra credit: F (circular argument used).
The reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious.
You've been presented in this very MOTD with numerous
examples of non-religious reasons why marriage is
still relevant and you've ignored them, as you're
sure to ignore any other fact which fails to fit
with your absurd notions. I'm done here. -tom
\_ I think you are ignoring the facts. Cohabitation
is 10x more common now than in 1960. The circular
reasoning here is yours. The only reason "the
reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious"
is because the (outdated) law makes it that way.
If you subtract religion from the equation then
what reason is there to "get married"? If
it's not about religion then why do the
majority of couples get married both in a
church and in a civil ceremony? If the laws were
changed to reflect modern society then there
would be no non-religious reasons to "get
married" but as it stands currently people are
*forced* to "get married" which is why gay
couples wish to do so. If they DO NOT then they
are denied their rights and *THAT* is an issue
as we are becoming an increasingly agnostic
society instead of the Christian society these
laws were based upon decades ago. You should
not have to "get married" to enjoy *ALL* of the
rights assigned to marriage. Why would you
force people to do so?
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying
anything." --David Byrne
\_ You're just not listening because it's
not what you want to hear. Answer me
this one question I have asked twice
now:
"Why do most people get married both in
a church and in a civil ceremony if
marriage does not involved religion?"
marriage does not involve religion?"
\_ First of all, I don't think it's clear
that "most" people get married in church
and in a civil ceremony. Do you have
any evidence of that?
Second, marriage is important
*culturally*; marriage is the transition
from one social status to another, and
in some cultures, it's done in the church
because that's where it's expected to be
done, and often there is a social cost to
pay if you go get married by Elvis and
leave the family out of it. That being
said, there are plenty of cultures where
getting married in the church is *not*
expected, and people get married in
a redwood grove, or on a ship, or in
their backyards. You really have no
argument at all here. -tom
\_ I'm not concerned about what they
do in other cultures. I'm
concerned about the US where most
people are married by a priest
even if it's not in a church. Sure,
not everyone is. Most people are.
Even in non-Christian cultures marriage
is often a religious ceremony. To
play marriage in the US off as a
"social ceremony" and ignore the
religious significance is disingenuous.
Why does CA allow priests (who are
not representatives of the State)
to conduct marriages? Shouldn't it
just be performed by judges and
magistrates if it's a civil affair?
\_ In many cultures *within the US*
it is common to not do a church
wedding. The Bay Area, for example.
The US also allows ship captains
to perform weddings; does that mean
marriage is a maritime institution
that has no relevance in landlocked
states? You have no clue. -tom
\_ The ship's captain thing is
not true and, truthfully,
there is no reason for it either.
http://tinyurl.com/l7nqn
BTW, even in the Bay Area,
weddings performed by priests
are the norm. But you are
missing the point, which is
"Why give priests any power
over this at all?" They have
no other legal powers that I
am aware of.
\_ So wait, do Jews not count
when they married?

5/28 Rachael Ray wears a scarf, Michelle Malkin says it looks Islamic,
Rachael Ray takes off the scarf.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24860437
\_ Michelle Malkin is not white. In fact she looks PHILLIPINO
and non-patriotic. Therefore she should go back to her country.
\_ Filipino, white man.
\_ Not quite accurate, but good enough for Olbermann's network.
The kiffiyeh-as-fashion is abhorrent, like the Che t-shirts, and
this looks a lot like one, though it isn't one.
\_ Let me guess, if you wear a suit without a tie you are a
anti-semitic homophobe?
\_ are you a fucking moron? IT'S A SCARF. GO OUTSIDE.
GET ON TRAIN. FIND WOMAN IN THIS SEASON'S FASHIONABLE
SCARF? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. SCARF SCARF SCARF
SCARF fuckhead. its not a che shirt. its not a symbol
of communist oppresssion. you are too stupid to live.
\_ I love how this sputtering monkey thinks HE's the smart one.
-!pp
\_ Che shirts are kitschy, not abhorrent. They imply a lack of
understanding.
\_ As does the Kaffiyeh.
\_ Dude, the Kaffiyeh is not a symbol of terror. It's a
fucking hat. People wear them all the time without being
evil dark skinned terrorists. And she was wear a fucking
SCARF. If it's around your neck it isn't a Kaffiyeh.
\_ This one's around the clueless Ricky Martin's neck
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/kaffiyehchic002.jpg
\_ as a scarf... and why is it "abhorrent" again?
\_ The phrase "Jerusalem is ours" inscribed in Arabic
on it.
\_ You have good eyes
\_ I wish I could sue Michelle Malkin for bringing up stupid shit
and polluting websites this week. fuck.
\_ How does Michelle Malkin monetize my wanting to stick a car
bumper up her ass?

5/28 I've ruled out the possibility of getting a gun when I collect
rent in shady neighborhoods. Instead, I may get a Taser. What's
a good Taser to get that I can conceal well? Taser C2 seems a bit
whimpy, but Taser M18-L is a bit bulky.
\_ I tell the landlady I got a job, I'm gonna pay the rent.
She said 'Yeah'? I said 'Oh yeah'. And then she was so nice.
Lord she was lovey-dovey. So I go in my room, pack up my things
and go. I slip on out the back door and down the streets I go.
She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be luck to get any
She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any
back rent.
OW OW OW THEN SHE TAZED ME OW OW OW OW OW OW OW
\_ that is illegal. taser should only be used for SELF DEFENSE.
ditto with guns. baseball bat, golf clubs, fists are ok
in any situation. at any rate, your land lady can't kick
you out. it takes like a whole year before they can really
evict you, physically.
\_ Not even. The unlawful detainer action can be completed
in 30 days and it's not more than another 30 before the
sheriff comes to kick you out, depending on the schedule
of the court.
\_ Non-payment of rent is a 3 Day or Quit kind of eviction.
It can go pretty fast, even in a place like San Francisco.
\_ Also depends on whether tenant files an Answer; if so,
welcome to extended court action.
\_ No one got my joke. sad.
\_ Why not pepper spray?
\_ Ever heard of a property manager?
My godfather is a slumlord and he ended up selling certain
properties when the tenants didn't pay rent because he was afraid
to go collect it. He should've used a property manager also.
It's worth a 10% fee to not get a bullet.
\_ a 10% decrease in revenue for me is 20% loss a year. -op
\_ Sounds like a crappy property to own. Why did you buy it?
\_ loooooong story. I lived in it till I moved out -op
\_ explain why you haul around your wife draped in expensive
jewelry while you collect rent? or is that another guy?
\_ expensive jewelry = relative. iPod and Nike shoes are
considered fancy in ghettovilles
\_ We sure have a lot of ambidextrous landlords with
concealed carry permits on the motd.
\_ I'm pretty certain this is the same troll.
\_ I am a LA Sodan (Toluca Lake). My wife shot a Home Invader
two years ago (before we were married!) and it was a huge
legal hassle. In fact it might have bankrupted her if she
wasn't friends with the cops (she was an Assistant DA then).
According to her lawyer, "it was a good thing you killed
him, because if he was just injured and around for the trial
you probably would have lost the suit." By the way, I learned
about this the day before we were married. Bay Area Sodans:
Do NOT judge people from LA. LA is Different! There are
dangerous people here. -mossberg590@gmail.com
\_ Whoaaa!!! MOST ENTERTAINING RESPOND EVER. Thanks!
\- ^EVER^EVAR

5/28 How it's made: CHICKS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkuohLV2u0k
\_ but will they blend?
\_ I'm a carnivore who has no problem killing chickens, but this
factory-farming shit is just wrong.
\- I'm not with you. What is 'wrong' about it? What is not
'wrong' about killing animals for consumption? If you
kill an animal slowly, is that less 'wrong' than if you
kill it quickly? I am not getting your point.
\_ Did you watch the video? That's not the way to raise
animals, whether you are going to eat them or not. If you
think the best-quality chicken results from
factory-farming then more power to you. BTW, yes, killing
an animal slowly (e.g. starvation) is much worse.
\_ This is sad. I can't help but imagein if the chicks are
human and some super species are farming us. Does "organic"
chicken/eggs gets better treatment?
\_ Depends on how organic. Go real free range. The eggs taste
better and the farming is sustainable. You can get them at
any bay area farmer's market these days.

5/28 http://www.thehistoryoflosangelesgraffitiart.comhttp://www.50mmlosangeles.com
Only in Los An-Heles. Oh, how I love Los An-HELES. ME GUSTA.
\_ El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula.
\_ Uh, dude. Graffiti has been the darling of the art scene all
over the country since at least the 80s.
\_ Yes but LOS ANHELES is the graffiti MECCA of the world.
\_ Never been to New York, have you?